[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

[Owen DeLong]

> On Nov 15, 2019, at 09:41 , Adam Thompson <athompson at merlin.mb.ca> wrote:
> 
>> Reminds me of ISDN : I Still Don't Need. Look around you and tell me where
>> you see ISDN. There is still plenty of POTS, and plenty of aDSL over POTS,
>> not over ISDN.
> 
> I beg your pardon???
> 
> BRIs are an utter market failure, for (unusually) mostly technical reasons.  The economic reasons were driven by the technical reason - to wit, installing BRI shelves into a Nortel DMS-100 provided 16 (iirc) BRIs in a space that could otherwise supply ~200 POTS lines.  There's only so much room in a CO, there's only so many shelves in only so many cabinets, so BRIs wound up being priced sky-high, at around 16/200 the price of a POTS line.

I think you mean 200/16 and at least where I live in California, that wasn’t true… BRI: $29.95/month POTS: $9.95/month That’s about 3:1 vs. ~12:1 as you stated.

>> The only thing that IPv6 could do for me is to waste my resources configuring it.
> 
> ...or arguing about it, although admittedly I'm doing the same right now.

Well… It could also connect you to the growing fraction of the internet and provide better performance, address transparency, and a few other benefits. Deploying it sooner rather than later also provides the benefit of being able to do it in a controlled manner on a more relaxed timeline rather than in a rush when somebody above you finally figures out that they need it yesterday.

> The policy is for your own good, and mine, and the good of entities who aren't even members yet, and the good of entities in other regions.

I’m always greatly concerned when people start trying to tell me something is “for my own good”. In fact, even if I was previously inclined towards an action, such an argument will give me pause to reconsider whether such an action is genuinely in my interest or not.

As much as I am in favor of IPv6 deployment and use IPv6 every day and look forward eagerly to the day when IPv4 is constrained to unimportant islands of in the dark corners of the internet, the reality is that this policy does nothing at all to move us closer to that day. Instead, it helps some of the people promoting IPv6 feel like they’ve accomplished something while only serving to annoy those that are resistant to IPv6 deployment.

I’m pro v6 and I oppose the policy as written.

> IF that means ARIN members are being treated like children, it's because so many of them have behaved that way.  And here we get into geopolitics again, which is rather out-of-scope for PPML.

As tempting as it is to respond to this, I’m having trouble coming up with an effective response that could not be taken as ad hominem.

Owen